On 6/8/10 1:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
d) every bit costs something. to compile, to link, to deliver. Just in
the listing of /usr/bin. Anything which serves no useful function
should IMO be removed. (Individually, these costs are minuscule, but
taken collectively over the entire life of
Nevertheless, if there are _any_ scripts that use it, unless you get
rid of all 29 (or however many) links to it, I don't see any incremental gain
by removing some of them.
Am taking the conservative approach here by removing only those
commands which could not possibly return true. It would
Nevertheless, if there are _any_ scripts that use
it, unless you get
rid of all 29 (or however many) links to it, I
don't see any incremental gain
by removing some of them.
Am taking the conservative approach here by removing
only those
commands which could not possibly return true.
Lukas Rovensky schrieb:
So, I read all the e-mails on this -- thanks for interesting discussion.
Here are a few more comments from me:
1) I got an approval from SFW c-team to move pwgen from SFW to /contrib
*prior* submitting this PSARC case. So, I will go back again to the
c-team for and
On 06/ 9/10 07:46 AM, John Fischer wrote:
Brian,
Should the local.sqlite be Project Private instead of Volatile?
OK, I'll change this.
Also the packages should be part of the exported interface
table as they show up in various places like Package Manager
and pkg search. Please insure that
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:15:56AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Of those you just mentioned, it might be worth keeping sun4m for awhile,
since AFAIK Solaris 9 (last that could run on sun4m) is still supported, and
thus a script might exist such that it would still be true on Solaris 9
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:15:18PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
d) every bit costs something. to compile, to link, to deliver. [...]
There's also a run-time cost. Anyone who's browsed for executables to
open media content with from Firefox will have observed that browsing
/bin borders on the
PSARC,
The OpenSolaris Text Installer case (2010/165) is scheduled for the
next Open meeting, Wednesday June 16th, 2010.
The Text Installer is a mouseless, screen-oriented text installer designed
for use on SPARC and x86 systems that may not have graphics support.
The case directory contains
It appears the Network Configuration is IPv4 only. Shouldn't we
be prepared for IPv6 at this point?
Is the user account created during the install granted any special
privileges or roles?
--
-Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Oracle Solaris Platform
Off Topic, but your email raised the thought/question;
Build 140 seems to have only a Text Installer ISO image available.
Yet, I have not seen anyone point to documentation that tells the users
what to expect with this, and what packages they would need to add
after install if they wanted to end
On 06/ 9/10 04:38 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
It appears the Network Configuration is IPv4 only. Shouldn't we
be prepared for IPv6 at this point?
The common case for IPv6 will likely be stateless address
autoconfiguration, which doesn't require specifying a static IPv6
address. As a
Neal,
On 06/ 9/10 04:45 PM, Neal Pollack wrote:
Off Topic
Yes indeed. Please ask such questions directly to the appropriate
project team members or to a more appropriate mailing list. This
external mailing list is for open architecture reviews of specific PSARC
cases, and mail sent here
On 06/09/10 13:38, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Is the user account created during the install granted any special
privileges or roles?
There are no special privileges, it is similar to the user account created by
the livecd's gui installer.
Sue
___
Sue Sohn wrote:
On 06/09/10 13:38, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Is the user account created during the install granted any special
privileges or roles?
There are no special privileges, it is similar to the user account
created by the livecd's gui installer.
The LiveCD GUI installer currently
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 06/ 9/10 04:38 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
It appears the Network Configuration is IPv4 only. Shouldn't we
be prepared for IPv6 at this point?
The common case for IPv6 will likely be stateless address
autoconfiguration, which doesn't require specifying a static IPv6
Sue Sohn wrote:
On 06/09/10 15:04, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Sue Sohn wrote:
On 06/09/10 13:38, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Is the user account created during the install granted any special
privileges or roles?
There are no special privileges, it is similar to the user account
created by the
16 matches
Mail list logo
